Originally Posted by Gort

You are right but in international law you conclude a treaty for the entire surface of your state, that means that the treaty also applies to territories that you do not govern anymore, if this territory wishes so. Again just think about it: if it would be otherwise, a newly independant state of Quebec would lose the work of over 200 years of Canadian diplomacy...



You are correct the Convention itself is not that important, nevertheless there is one part which can be considered as a part of universal international law which is the established practice that a multilateral treaty continues to be in force unless the newly independant state (and nobody else) wishes so. This is even in the source that you quoted.



The treaty is not only talking about two states forming one new, but also about "newly independent states" (Part III.) In Article 2, newly independent state is defined as "a successor state the territory of which immediately before the date of succession of states was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor state was responsible." Well, this is kind of complicated legal English but as I interprete it, this would be kind of the case of Quebec.



I think I already answered this, international treatys are concluded between governments on behalf of their territories (not states and not populations). As for the feelings of Quebec towards the US you might be right. An orientation of Quebec towards the EU might be an alternative, yet, this is absolutely no issue whatsoever right now.




Treaties and UN SC resolutions are not the only sources of international law. We also have to include among other universal international law. Although this is a small part (and in practice often unimportant admittedly). Nevertheless Art.16 can be considered as such a part (see also your web link) since this is the general rule which is applied in almost all cases of state succession. Nevertheless in such an event, it might depend on the policy of the US how all this is regarded, e.g. Art.16 does not apply to the membership to International Organizations. As for your example of NAFTA it would be interesting to see if this association qualifies as an International Organization which I doubt.



I understand your point. Also for Quebec is far away and it is not all to urgent for our matters over here. My main interest in all that was a legal point of view. How that might work.